↓ Skip to main content

How to spot a statistical problem: advice for a non-statistical reviewer

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
307 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
How to spot a statistical problem: advice for a non-statistical reviewer
Published in
BMC Medicine, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0510-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Darren C. Greenwood, Jennifer V. Freeman

Abstract

Statistical analyses presented in general medical journals are becoming increasingly sophisticated. BMC Medicine relies on subject reviewers to indicate when a statistical review is required. We consider this policy and provide guidance on when to recommend a manuscript for statistical evaluation. Indicators for statistical review include insufficient detail in methods or results, some common statistical issues and interpretation not based on the presented evidence. Reviewers are required to ensure that the manuscript is methodologically sound and clearly written. Within that context, they are expected to provide constructive feedback and opinion on the statistical design, analysis, presentation and interpretation. If reviewers lack the appropriate background to positively confirm the appropriateness of any of the manuscript's statistical aspects, they are encouraged to recommend it for expert statistical review.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 307 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 2 2%
Netherlands 1 1%
France 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Finland 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Egypt 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 82 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 17%
Other 13 14%
Student > Master 7 7%
Professor 6 6%
Other 22 23%
Unknown 11 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 12%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 24 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 190. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 November 2022.
All research outputs
#208,607
of 25,382,360 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#178
of 3,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,816
of 294,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#6
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,360 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 294,845 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.